In a late comment posted just this morning, in reply to the article and photos about my recent visit to Diebold in Texas, a person claiming to be an employee of one of Diebold's New England distributors believes I am "totally full of shit"...

Dear Brad, you are totally full of shit. I used to think that all of the looney idealogues were on the right. There are just as many on the left and you are one of them. You have no idea how elections are conducted and how many safeguards are in place, including human oversight. But, facts don't matter to ideologues, so I'm probably wasting my time. To think that many of your paranoid fellow travellers would actually think that the hand counting of paper ballots is nirvana just shows how deluded you and they are. I work for LHS Associates in New England. We are distributors for Diebold and while I have many reasons to criticize things that the company has done over the past few years, the thought that there is a company wide culture of fraud and deception is ludicrous. But, as I said, facts don't matter to you. Stop blaming the vendors and look to the incompetence and cowardice of the Democratic party for its failures. Couple that with the criminal activities of the GOP relative to vote suppression and you've got your answers. It's not the machines that are the cause of our problems, it's the people. I challenged Bev Harris and Harri Hursti a couple of years ago and they backed off. I issue the same challenge to you. Pick a forum and I'd be happy to discuss how we run elections in New England and how difficult, if not impossible it is to game the system. Bring it on.

I don't know Mr. Hajjar, nor his company, LHS Associates, and don't have much time again today, as I'm still on the road, to look into them, but I'll presume both are legitimate entities and he is the one who posted the above comment. Hajjar, according to LHS's website, appears to be their "Director of Sales and Marketing," so it's little wonder he's a bit deluded about the products his company represents and upon which his livelihood depends. It makes sense that he might be a tad paranoid about what may come in the wake of recent devastating findings out of California concerning Diebold and their shitty, hackable voting systems, as far as his continuing ability to make a living off them courtesy of the tax-payer teat.

Nonetheless, I am happy to reply to a point or two of his silly, ill-conceived screed, along with gladly accepting his invitation to debate these particular issues publicly...

"[T]he thought that there is a company wide culture of fraud and deception is ludicrous," wrote Hajjar in his comment, presumably in reply to something we've reported at some point. I don't believe I made any such assertion in the article on which he left his comment, although a reliable Diebold insider we dubbed "DIEB-THROAT" when first reporting that source's information back in 2005, had told The BRAD BLOG that "Diebold's upper management was aware of" problems with security issues on their voting systems "before the 2004 election - but did nothing to correct it."

The warning, issued in August of 2004, said, "A vulnerability exists due to an undocumented backdoor account, which could a [sic] local or remote authenticated malicious user modify votes." Yet Diebold spokesperson David Bear told The BRAD BLOG at the time, "I don't know anything about it," and he confirmed that no changes had been made to the GEMS tabulator software since the CERT warning.

DIEB-THROAT further told us that he had "seen these systems connected to phone lines dozens of times with users gaining remote access...eliminat[ing] any need for a conspiracy of hundreds to alter the outcome of an election," and that "Remote access using this backdoor means that one malicious person can change the outcome of any Diebold election."

Of course, CA Secretary of State Debra Bowen's independent vulnerability testing of Diebold's voting systems [PDF], carried out by some of the world's top computer scientists at the University of California and released just about a week ago, found precisely what our source had discussed two years ago.

Without access to the system's source code, the team "uncovered evidence that Diebold technicians created a remotely-accessible Windows account that, by default configuration (according to the Diebold documentation), can be accessed without the need to supply a password." They remarked that "Devices, as delivered to customers, should only have accounts that are well-documented and remote access that is necessary for the needs of the particular county. Undocumented remotely-accessible logins are contrary to generally-accepted security practices."

Exploiting these long-standing security gulfs, the UC team of scientists reported, could allow a malicious user to "modify GEMS databases, altering vote totals," and causing other related mischief.

"They don't have security solutions. They don't want them," DIEB-THROAT explained to us back in 2005. "They've known about this for some time. They don't really care," the source said, comparing the security flaws to "leaving the front door at Fort Knox open." It's just "blatant sloppiness and they don't care."

Are we all "deluded," "paranoid," "looney idealogues" then? Or could it be Hajjar has been guzzling the Diebold company Kool-Aid? DIEB-THROAT also touched on this phenomenon by pointing out, as we reported at the time, that company employees --- including himself --- "had been 'brainwashed' by the pervasive 'company line' at Diebold that all of the talk about security concerns and the possibility that someone could hack the vote was the talk of 'conspiracy theorists.'"

Though the source said there is a "culture of fear" at the company, we've never reported or even implied that "there is a company wide culture of fraud and deception." We do, however, stand firmly by our years of reporting --- including the article on which Hajjar commented --- and by the dozens of studies which confirm that the greatest threat to election security comes from Election Insiders, including employees at voting machine companies who have virtually unlimited access to the devices.

Even the final report from the fatally compromised Baker/Carter National Commission on Election Reform found that "Software can be modified maliciously before being installed into individual voting machines. There is no reason to trust insiders in the election industry any more than in other industries."

Is James A. Baker III one of those "deluded," "paranoid," "looney idealogues," Mr. Hajjar?

You suggest I should "look to the incompetence and cowardice of the Democratic party for its failures," and in response, I'd suggest that you look to The BRAD BLOG for volumes of reporting on exactly that. Perhaps our page of detailed special coverage of Democratic Rep. Rush Holt's proposed election reform bill will offer you a clue, since you seem to be tragically without one in that regard.

"It's not the machines that are the cause of our problems, it's the people," you write. And of course, I agree. That was the point of the article you commented on, but apparently failed to grasp. You, by the way, are one of those people who are at the root cause of our problems.

Or perhaps you're just a deluded, paranoid loon when it comes to reading detailed, independently verifiable reports on the corrupt, unAmerican, democracy-hating liars with whom you've decided to cast your lot.

Either way, I'd be delighted to take up your offer to debate all of these issues. If someone reading this would like to create a forum for such a debate somewhere between here (Missouri) and California over the next few weeks as I travel, I'd be happy to show up and debate all of these matters publicly. Otherwise, I'll be back in Los Angeles by September, and would happily meet you there for same.

SAVE R VOTE hereby proudly offers (and Brad has concurred) to provide the venue for the debate, whether in Riverside County, San Diego County, or Los Angeles. We will do it as a fundraiser for the tireless efforts of the election activity advocates in Riverside County, the first in the nation to make the mistake of going to all electronic (paperless) voting in 2000.

I challenge the ROV of Los Angeles County, Conny McCormick, the ROV of San Diego County, Deborah Seiler and/or the ROV of Riverside County, Barbara Dunmore to join Mr. Haijar on his side of the debate table. In exchange for each of the above mentioned ROVs who join him, Mr. Tom courbat has agreed to join Brad and if two join Haijar, I will invite Bev Harris, and if all three join in with Mr. Haijar, we will make every effort to get Harri Hursti to join in on our side.

Oh, I forgot to mention, perhaps Jeff Stone, an outspoken defender of e-voting on the Board of Supervisors of Riverside County, is also cordially invited to join in on Mr. Haijar's side. We will provide even matches for each that joins in with Mr. Haijar.

This could be a debate of historic proportions. I am convinced that NONE of the above ROVs or Mr. Stone will have the huevos to accept the challenge, because they know they will be made to look bad. I seriously doubt even Mr. Haijar will accept Brad's acceptance of his challenge, and will wiggle out, just like Jeff Stone did after he offered a 1,000 to 1 bet that no one could hack a machine in Riverside County.

We will invite Mr. Tom Elias or Mr. Chris Bagley, two highly knowledgeable newspaper columnist/reporters to serve as moderator of the debate.

So now, time to put one's money where one's mouth is. Put up or shut up and crawl back to the dark side.

he who made kittens put snakes in the grass. -JT
Heck,from what I've seen Brad has done nothing but insure that votes are counted correctly.Your double speak is reminiscent of Tony Snow. On the other hand,it is fun to watch people like you get their asses handed to them on the new Diebold dinnerware. So come back and feel free to spew your drivel.
btw, what is your title at
Lawlessly
Handled
Systems?

I guarantee that both he and hundreds of other voting activists do, as well as the many academic researchers who have volunteered to work in elections. From my and other activists personal experiences we can say that elections are too many times kept hidden from public view in too many critical areas. Local election officials deliberately disregard state law and procedures for use repeatedly. They delegate duly authorized election observers to outside halls and force them to look through the window at the back of a monitor. They refuse to release audit and event logs. Alaskan election officials refused until a judge ordered them release the logs, then it was revealed they had gone into the database and made changes.

You stated:

"the thought that there is a company wide culture of fraud and deception is ludicrous."

Obviously you have NOT read the leaked internal Diebold memos. Nor read the documents and report released in April 2004 documenting Diebold's repeated lies and misrepresentations. I personally was at the hearings in October 2003 when both Deborah Seiler (then Diebold's salesperson, now San Diego Registrar; and Frank Kaplan, then a Diebold manager) told those at the hearing that the Diebold TSx had successfully passed the ITA's testing to the 2002 VSS, and Diebold was just waiting for the final report and issuance of the NASED Qualification number. That was a lie on both counts. I watched Bob Urosevich at the hearing in December 2003 tell the panel that Diebold was starting a new chapter in its management after being caught illegally installing new software and patches in California counties.

You stated:

"many safeguards are in place, including human oversight."

Many of us through public record requests, personal observation, pictures and video taping, can unequivocably claim that many election officials do not follow the legally required safeguards. In California there is a legal requirement in state law to post the printed out results at the polling site the night of the election. Many counties refused. Riverside County asked for a waiver and was refused. They then deliberately violated the law by not posting the results.

You stated:

"To think that many of your paranoid fellow travellers would actually think that the hand counting of paper ballots is nirvana just shows how deluded you and they are."

Such fallacious argument should have been beneath you. From your writing, and employment position, I would assume you are well educated and above average in intelligence. I am always deeply disturbed when people use their knowledge and skills to deliberately misrepresent either information or another person's position. You have done so in the above quote. In one sentence you use the term paranoid to describe the general character of BradBlog readers, misrepresent HCPB advocates' position, and then insult us by claiming that those who refuse to be deluded by the well proven lies of the vendors are ourselves deluded. People advocating hand counting ballots have never claimed that doing so in itself is nirvana. We all know there must be checks and audits in place to assure an accurate hand count. You ignore the proven fact that the counting of votes within GEMS can be manipulated in several ways, and the evidence of that alteration can be erased by design.

I would ask you these questions:

Why was a hidden SD slot placed on the motherboard of the TSx? What is its purpose? Why does the fact it is there not listed in the hardware or ports list submitted to the ITA's?

Why is there a second power switch, accessible on the outside of the case, but with just a gray unmarked plug on it?

Why was a special serial adapter developed for accessing the operating system without going through the memory card or serial ports?

Why does the modem system have a hidden two pin port, when the normal modem port would be easily accessible by an authorized person going through the memory card door?

Why was the price on the TSx not lower than on the TS when Diebold's manufacturing unit costs were lower by 25%?

You have an obvious conflict of interest in this debate. You are also swimming up river. Every single study of the Diebold voting systems, from the Compuware Report in November 2003, the Maryland Red Team Report in January 2004, and all subsequent studies and reviews find that the Diebold electronic voting systems are poorly designed from the ground up, use obsolete components, and are designed to repeatedly need updates and fixes to maximize profits at the expense of the taxpayers. Worse, they have been designed at the least to make it more convenient for election officials to manipulate results to match up with their needs, and at the worse to allow elections to be stolen.

It is the culture of misrepresentations and lies practiced by the election industry that is reprehensible. It appears from your comments you are part and parcel of that industry.

This fcker talks tough and i would like to hear him wag his tongue in person about the benifits of hacking into the US vote at anytime along the the way by private proprietary companies now entrusted to count the vote of "we the people."

The last 3 FEDERAL elections were rigged using humanistic type fraud and electronic computer voting machines.

i will be at the SAVE R VOTE debate and watch you get shredded. While i agree with the premise that humans involved with the counting of votes are part of the problem, hackable electronic voting machines are the tool of choice for an easy theft 50 different ways.

If you bother to show up it will be proven that you are the one full of shit and companies like diebold are criminals and should face full prosecution of FEDERAL law.

Better find a new line of work acehole because these machines will be abolished by the people. Even in it's crisis state, the US Democracy is a government of the "people" not of the "corporation" although your political affiliation might lead you to believe otherwise dumbass.

Dear Ken, if you could post your opinions, ideas, and other thoughts without resorting to that old fux news tactic of telling people they are full of shit, although using different words than just saying someone is FOS, then someone might be willing to take you up on your "challenge" to discuss New England election issues.

Calling others FOS, looney ideologues, and paranoid fellow travelers, making unsubstantiated and totally-open-to-interpretation statements such as "you have no idea," ridiculously comparing anything other than "nirvana" to "nirvana," and calling something said by someone else "ludicrous" (straight out of O'Reilly's bag o' tricks) is not how my friends in New England would welcome a lively discussion about anything.

And then closing it with "bring it on???!" Come on, dude. You might want to consider cutting down on your daily dose of espresso.

Dori Smith of Talk National Radio interviewed him, Thursday 30 November 2006
[snip]
"Dori Smith: What would LHS be on hand to do if the machine were to fail? You know tell me the protocol.

Ken Hajjar: Well in that case, first of all in this case that didn’t happen. None of the machines failed. If a machine were to fail either on election day or in any other circumstance it would be merely a matter of removing the memory card, there’s a little card that keeps track of the votes, bring a new machine over, put the memory card in the new machine, when you turn it on the new machine picks up right where the old machine stopped."http://talknationradio.com/?p=58 (He comes on in the audio at about the 10:50 mark)

Hmm, Ken. After reading Jody Holder's questions (comment #12), I must conclude you are right. Activists out here couldn't possibly know what we are talking about. Questions like his are just so basic and naiive that they barely rate a reply from you.

So having said that, why don't you take a crack at answering them, just for fun, you know. Show us all how smart you are and how dumb we are to even ask such shallow questions.

This should be a good warm-up for the SAVE R VOTE debate you are going to accept. I understand you have left the office for the day, but I did leave you a voice mail. Please check it and get back to me.

We are ready to get that debate scheduled at your VERY earliest convenience (or as soon as Brad returns, whichever comes first).

And for the record - BBV and Harri Hursti didn't "back off" of Ken Hajjar's delusional so-called challenge.

LHS Associates, the company he works for, has total control of programming the memory cards, in complete secrecy. Since our contention has been all along that the greatest threat comes from inside access, the only meaningful "challenge" would be to give Hursti the same level of access as the technicians and other insiders at LHS and any of their cronies in the election offices.

I have a question for Ken Hajjar: Do you believe the plastic seal on the Diebold optical scan protects the memory card?

Why does Diebold represent that this ludicrous seal, which me and my 50-year old administrative assistant defeated in four minutes with $12 worth of tools, "secures" the memory card?

And doesn't every single Diebold technician know full well that's a lie, since they open the case (the same was we did, with a Phillips head screwdriver) every time they have to service it?

Thank you GWN for those links, especially the interview with Hajjai.
He states something that is news to me, and brings up another security issue.

To quote:

Ken Hajjar: The protocol is pretty straightforward. We have a data base of all of the elections in the state. So if somebody tells me that Durham (Connecticut) had a problem we would program a Durham card, we would bring it to Durham the Registrar would have already set up a “test deck�? of ballots that had been previously hand counted, they would run that “test deck�? through the machine and check the machine count against the hand count, and if they match up then they assured that the program has been positively coded correctly.

In particular:
"We have a data base of all of the elections in the state. So if somebody ... had a problem we would program a ... card

This raises more questions. What he is saying is LHS as a vendor for Diebold, has an electronic copy of all the custom election specific firmware for the election. That would include the specific ballot style to be used by each voter. That would include the precinct information, and more importantly, the actual ballot definitions.
Ballot definitions are supposed to be created by sworn election staff at the local level. These are the electronic form of writing down the candidate's name over a particular spreadsheet column. Then when the votes are counted each vote would be credited to the column under that name. When doing manual recounts the crediting of votes is normally observed by two or more persons to make sure the vote is being credited correctly. When doing it electronically everything depends upon the ballot definitions being accurate.

What we know with the Diebold system, and most if not all other electronic voting systems, the ballot definition can be changed and the votes will be credited to the wrong column. We also know with the Diebold system that anyone who accesses the GEMS (central tabulation and election management system) can alter the totals in a particular column. If switched with another candidate then the totals will stay the same. It is also possible to change the ballot definitions temporarily during the tabulation, and then reverse the change after tabulation to remove the manipulation of the vote.

The recent California review confirmed the vulnerability of GEMS to such manipulations. Since Diebold has now made the GEMS server the source for controlling how the central count scanners read the ballots (credit each vote), access to GEMS allows the above manipulation. It also would allow the Hursti I style of attack.

That is why Secretary Bowen has set up strict requirements to isolate the GEMS server from external connections. She also has set specific restrictions on what auxiliary programs may be on the GEMS server.

Which leads us back to the problem of LHS having a copy of all the elections' ballot definitions in their possession.
Why do they? What would be the purpose, since the county is supposed to be the entity that creates the election specific programming, and would already have copies resident in GEMS or other storage media?

Since we have documentation that GEMS servers have communicated with Diebold during election day and night, the revelation that a Diebold representative company has copies of the custom programming by which votes are recorded or credited is disturbing indeed.

Optical scan is as vulnerable to fraud and error as all other forms of electronic voting are. That is because the OS and DRE systems both use ballot definitions to record and credit votes, and the final tabulation and reporting is still done by the same central election management programs. The major difference is the fact there is a paper record marked by the voter that can be used in conducting random, scientifically based audits to check for error or fraud. If there are no effective audits required, then OS remains a security risk.

The more we learn, the more our suspicions are confirmed. We have moved from the theoretical years ago. When will election officials stop pretending there is no problems, based upon assurances from vendors and their representatives, and their own self-interest, and start doing their duty?

Well Brad, you are on their radar and he feels threatened. First, they ignore you, then they notice, then they write screeds, then they go out of business. Hope he is getting resume together. He is right about one thing, it is the people's fault. Appathy about DRE and assumptions that corporations are infallible. In his world, guns aren't the problem; human nature is. Guns don't kill people, voting machines do! They gave us Bush and Exxon now controls our country.

I wouldn't talk to him, either, Brad. He's not worth it. He's history, and he knows it. Just ask yourself this one question: What could possibly come out of any "discussion" with this guy that would be productive for the election and voting issues you're dealing with?

The style of "discussing" he prefers works on fux news and on right wing blab radio. It doesn't work in a forum that's trying to get at the truth.

Thanks for that generous offer. Sounds good to me! Funny thing, though...So far I haven't heard a peep back from Hajjar. And I know he received word of my response.

Is he out telling folks I "backed off" as he claimed about Bev Harris and Harri Hursti (which Harris strongly disputes above)? Is he otherwise pulling a Jeff Stone and figure out how to wriggle out of his challenge.

Or is he just a liar, like so many of the folks that work for, lie for, Diebold and didn't really plan on meeting the challenge if it was accepted (which it now has been)?

Hmmm. If I owned a company with employees, and one of them went on a nationally watched blog and told the person running the blog that he was full of shit, and did so as a representative of my company, WHAT WOULD I DO? Hmmm.

Brad: Woohoo! I'm soooo into watching that debate! If you set it up in Phoenix --- I'll be there!

Jody Holder: Fantastic work!

Ken Hajjar: A quick analysis of your personality based on your writing suggests that you may indeed be a logical thinker and have a conscience lurking within your spirit. But, something (greed? a desire to be liked or powerful?) has caused you to force reason aside in order to manipulate the market with slogans of false assurance. To avoid the curse of your conscience creating insanity, maybe you should consider being a whistle blower to make things right with the universe and live up to your potential.

Representatives of the campaign privately discussed potential security vulnerabilities in the Diebold voting machines to be used in Saturday's vote, but a spokesman tells RAW STORY that Paul's campaign never intended to publicly challenge the vote.

"We didn't want to use and will not use this as a public relations opportunity," Jesse Benton, a spokesman for Paul's campaign, said in a telephone interview. "We have no part in that lawsuit."

(ibid, emphasis added). Where have we heard that before? I noticed that you had three links to various aspects of that story.

One wonders if there any connection between republican ownership of Diebold and the faith in Diebold machines:

The Iowa Republican Party says the vote will be "fraud-proof, honest and secure." Participants will have to show a valid Iowa ID and will have their thumbs dyed purple to prevent multiple votes.

(ibid, emphasis added). One also wonders how why they think they can guarantee no fraud. Maybe it is the purple magic die that makes fraud impossible there?

Does LHS make that magic Baghdad purple die, then sprinkle it like holy water over their machines, then dip the thumb of the bushies in it to absolve their sins? Whattaya say priest/mullah Hajjar?

Nice try, Mr. Hijjar - and thanks for playing. It's clear to everyone that you are nothing more than a Diebold "pimp" throwing around derogatory words like "paranoid" and "looney". Are we to believe that you have 1) more than a room temperature IQ and reasonable intelligence with those remarks - or - 2) any shred of credibility based on the fact that your work for the company for whom you are pimping??

Nice attempt at being what is dubbed a "concern troll" though. It didn't work at all.

Your charlatanism and obvious conflict of interest is evident and no one is buying one word you have to say. We all know that it's definitely NOT THE PEOPLE who are voting which constitute the problem; it's the hacking into our voting machines that's the crisis - and I suppose you know all about that.

There needs to be a serious investigation into the machinations of Ken Blackwell of Ohio for his complicity in the Diebold-hack of the 2004 election in that state where the wrong man became president if we want to get to the true root of the problem.

As for having one iota of confidence in your DRE's or any other for that matter, the people know the sad, ugly truth that these machines are left "intentionally vulnerable" to the manipulation of insiders who are taking one more of our constitutional rights away from us.

We know the truth and I'd suggest that you, Mr. Hijjar, get a "life". A life of lies, deceit and total corruption will net you either a serious physical illness while here on earth (rotting from the inside out) or several lifetimes in hell.

Brad,
As for debating an obvious charlatan pimped by his employer to attempt to deflect the conversation away from their complicity and criminal behavior in the 2004 election, I wouldn't give this guy the time of day - no less debate him.

The sheer desperation of Diebold sending out talking heads to attempt to play the same tricks on the people as Bush et al did during the run up to Iraq is almost comical to me. Clearly, Diebold sees the handwriting on the wall and many within will someday soon find themselves behind prison bars.

Negative karma by mere association with this gang of thugs is something which you do not need. It's like appearing on Faux News, the Non-comedy comedy station in this country....people with self-respect simply have nothing to do with them. You need to do the same.

Let them "out themselves" as they are doing right now. As time creeps toward the 08 elections and their machinery becomes further investigated, they will be heading for the hills like rats deserting a sinking ship.

Already, California has "de-certified" their Diebold machines....many states are in the process of doing the same. Soon the name Diebold will be the "pariah" of the voting hardware/software industry.

Thanks, Beverly for adding the link to the supposedly "impenetrable plastic seal" which secures the memory card. Pretty telling that women got into it handily within minutes with a $12 gizmo. Says oodles about the laughable security in the system, doesn't it?

I forsee that ALL EVM's will be "de-certified" either by individual states or by Congress soon.

Their stock will drop like the Titanic (already is in some areas of the country) and their "game" will be headline news.

Remember that the cops who run speed traps are trained by either the equipment company's sales force or someone trained by them. They are rarely told of the weaknesses of the apparatus.
The same with this equipment.

I agree in general with all your comments, but would like to clarify one of them. You said:

As for having one iota of confidence in your DRE's or any other for that matter, the people know the sad, ugly truth that these machines are left "intentionally vulnerable" to the manipulation of insiders who are taking one more of our constitutional rights away from us.

Actually DRE technology is used quite safely in ATM machines, even those made by Diebold.

It is election machine DRE technology that is unsafe at any speed (which adds to the suspicion).

If they make safe DRE technology for the ATM market, and can therefore also do so for the election market, why do they not make the DRE safe in the election market?

That is very, very suspicious, and is even seen as deliberate by some critics other than yourself.

Mr. Hajar is a very real person and he does indeed work for New England Diebold dealer, LHS Associates.

He is not known for his eloquence in public representation. At a legislative hearing in NH last year, he referred to those of us present who oppose the use of Diebold in NH elections as "granola loving, tin foil hat conspiracy theorists, loonies, etc." He did not do LHS Associates a particularly big favor in his diatribe before the committee.

LHS is well loved by NH local election officials. They provide excellent customer service, so when something goes awry, election officials just call, and in they come to take care of things. Unfortunately, I suspect that this cozy, loving relationship blurs reality so that our good and honest election officials might just forget for a moment that they are running an election. And that if something is wrong with the device counting the votes, customer service awards are not necessarily their pre-eminent concern.

LHS Associates has two businesses they maintain. Diebold is one. And the other is collecting census data. Kind of like our own little ChoicePoint for New England: collect the demographics, then program the elections.

I look forward to the day when LHS Associates no longer peddles their shoddy wares to New Hampshire municipalities.

For a fun little 3 minutes, take a look at LHS Associates President, John Silvestro, admitting to the NH Ballot Law Commission last year that the product subsequently approved by the Commission had 16 critical defects that could cause election failure or tampering:

I suspect, his employer does not know he wrote to you, or at least didn't, prior to him doing it. They probably do know now. Most corporations would just ignore comments on blogs, unless they could see that it was causing them so much trouble, and wasn't true, so they must/could sue you.

Other than that, they probably don't appreciate their employee running off half cocked and causing them more scrutiny. At the least he will have a reprimand, and possibly will be looking for a new job come Monday morning.

I think it is time to start charging these Diebold, ES&S, etc., Executives and Employees with the felonies that they are quilty of. Put them in jail for violating the rights of all voters. Then fine their asses to such an extent they will live shabby little existances for the rest of their lives.

Not to be bother to all who contribute here, however, Mr Hajjir has made some very valid points that do bear up under scrutiny.

I believem and I also believe evidence will support this, that the most glaring problem with elections cycles 2000 and 2004 was not necessarily the machines, but it was the OBVIOUSLY PARTISAN PEOPLE in chargoe of OPERATING those machines. (more precisely, running the elections.)

Katherine Harris and Jeb Bush in Florida
and
J. Kenneth Blackwell in Ohio.

The machines are hackable, yes. The Gems Database system is insecure. Backdoor accounts exist and even the most novice computer networking technician will understand that's a no no.

But were it not for the complete lack of integrity in the people who are charged with running these elections, there'd be a vastly different political and social landscape today.

yes, it IS true, that a lackadaisical attitude towards security in election machines by the manufacturers is extremely inappropriate, but many of these same shortcomings are overcome in the corporate world through training and vigilance.

Not having transparancy and accountability to the people at the political offices that oversee elections, to this networking guy, is a far greater risk to elections than crappy equipment.

This stance, please note, does NOT let Diebold, ES&S or Hart Intercivic off the hook. Once a vulnerability is indicated, it MUST be addressed. Period.

but the shortcomings and failures of elections cycles 2000 and 2004 were primarily due to partisanship at state office holders with vested interests in the outcome. Which is criminal. Diebold hackabality, while reprehensible, is not criminal. (Unless proven to be done with malicious intent).

So...in summary...

While Diebold may be scumbags, and arguably, severeley incompetent scumbags. Blackwell and Harris and Hearne and others appear to be criminally inclined scumbags.

But were it not for the complete lack of integrity in the people who are charged with running these elections, there'd be a vastly different political and social landscape today.

Well, that's exactly the point. People will *always* try to steal elections. So transparency at every level is the only thing that might allow folks to deter such actions and/or catch it after it's caught.

That Diebold et al make voting systems that make it manifestly easier to game such elections (by a single person, instead of a larger conspiracy as generally required if trying to stuff paper ballot boxes), makes the situation only worse, not better.

As to whether it's criminal or not, I'd suggest if they sold/represented their machines as "secure" (as they have) or meeting federal standards (as they have) despite using code specifally banned at the federal level ("interpretive" code as discovered secretly on the systems), then it is indeed a criminal act.

That's called fraud as far as I can tell.

And more than anybody, it's the Elections Officials who knew what these guys, like LHS Associations, told them when hawking their wares. It's the Election Officials who ought to be bringing fraud suits against the vendors at this point, and try to get some of the tax-payer money back (as well as toss some of these guys in jail!)

You'll find the election officials bringing suit when they open their eyes and disengage from their lovingly cosy relationships with the vendor representatives.

These guys sell customer service. That, and election fraud. But to most election officials, the 80% or so who are good and honest, they are selling customer service.

The election officials love them. They love them so much they have forgotten that they, our election officials, are the guardians of democracy. They have forgotten that they are election officials, and that their job is not to wrap things up as quickly as possible, and to be grateful for the fine LHS customer service that allows them to.

They have forgotten their oath to uphold the Constitutions of the United States and their own state. In New Hampshire, this means they have forgotten their oath to uphold the NH Constitutional mandate to sort and count our votes in open meeting.

Their short and distracted memories have failed them in their duties, and have caused them to fail us all in the promise of America as envisioned by the Founders and carried in every American citizen's heart.

They have forgotten that one long night of making sure that their fellow citizens' votes are counted properly is a small price to pay for what others are literally dying for. DYING FOR, in our name, I might add. By a criminal administration that is murdering our own men and women and millions of other citizens of the world precisely because too many election officials have forgotten that they are the guardians of democracy.

But wanted to reiterate the obvious, If J Kenneth Blackheart is administering an election for the public's interest, then he has ZERO business being a campaign general for one of the election participants.

That falls on the responsibility of the voters and Federal Elections law. It has changed, as I understand it....yet Blackheart will never be brought to answer for the, OBVIOUS as the horns on a steer, conflict of interest.

The whole mess is so damned Rovian.

But the likes of Diebold will never clean up their act if the people we hire to oversee such things aren't acting, with integrity, in seeing to their constituents desires.

Ken Hajjar does not represent the voters of New England and should not be telling anyone how we run elections.

Unfortunately, here in Connecticut we are about to have our 1st election entirely run by Diebold equipment purchased through LHS and to add to our risks the Secretary of the State has contracted with Diebold to program all of our elections. So in that sense Ken, LHS, and Diebold will be running our elections, and not telling us how they are run.

Let figure out a way to have a coast to coast event, including voters from New England in the audience and on the stage.

Well, I guess I got everyone's attention. Please note that I talk about elections here in New England which is 100% optical scan/paper ballot. I am not now, nor ever have been a huge fan of DRE's, whether Diebold's or anyone else's, for many of the reasons that most people have. Frankly, my basic contention about DRE's has been that it's overkill. You don't need that much technology for the simple purpose of counting votes. That being said, I find it interesting to note the types of conclusions your "followers" jump to concerning me, my politics, my motives, whether I have recently won or lost a sale, etc. Those are the people I referred to as ideologues and they obviously have drunk the Brad kool aid. But, I digress. My challenge to the estimable Bev Harris still stands and it refers to the so-called "Hursti hack" for optical scan only. That was a scam and she and Harri Hursti both know it. Hursti, in fact, admitted as much in a letter to the previous CA Secretary of State. She or anyone she chooses can provide a scanner, a pile of ballots and a memory card programmed to tally those ballots. I will do a pre-election test count and then will seal the card in the machine. The scanner will then be locked into the ballot box and I defy anyone to then mess with the count. It can't be done. Now if some of you want to claim that it's POSSIBLE for A single clerk, registrar or other official to rig the count, I say no. It would take MANY people from BOTH parties to even try. Here in New England, especially in Connecticut, there are at least two pairs of eyes involved in each step of the process. Rules are in place and the scanners are sealed after testing and the seal number is part of the record. It would take a lot of people to play around with this. Could LHS or Diebold rig the count? Not after we ship the memory card to the customer and anyone who claims otherwise just doesn't know what they are talking about. Is GEMS hackable? Sure, given enough access and time. For that matter, is anything UNhackable, given open (I prefer the term "unfettered") access? Of course not. That’s the basis of the objection of the CA county election officials; that the Secretary's test was not a real world application. By the way, I told my boss about my post right after I wrote it. So those of you who want me "busted", don't waste your time. Do I seem to be irate? You bet and it has nothing to do with the legitimacy of electronic voting, which I have also questioned. It's the blind acceptance of many people to automatically accept what they read, as long as it fits with their existing biases. That is why I used the word ideologue.
A lie or an exaggeration gets repeated enough times and it becomes the truth. I would probably buy into this conspiracy myself if I were not in the industry. There have been many things written and dispersed that I KNOW just are not true. Finally, what I found most amusing were the comments from several people who automatically assumed that I must be a Bushie, or references to FOX or some other assumptions as to my politics or motives. Well folks, sorry to disappoint you but my "progressive" credentials go back to before many of you were born or able to vote, starting with Gene McCarthy and George McGovern. I marched at Nixon's Anti-Inauguration in '72. I was always proud of the fact tht nobody I voted for ever won. I even believed everything Greg Palast wrote until he started writing about the e-voting conspiracy. Now, to me, EVERYTHING I read or see is suspect until it's been confirmed from several angles. Which brings me to my final point. I think the Blogosphere is great, true freedom of speech in an uncensored forum. But there is a responsibility that comes with it and that is to be accurate as much as possible. I said that Brad was full of shit for a good reason. I was in Allen, TX last week at Diebold. Even I had trouble getting in. So, while Brad would like to give the impression that he had the run of the place, I know otherwise. And when he begins his diatribe talking about the “lying, liars” at Diebold, he betrays his agenda. He's no journalist, merely a muckraker. I'm still available for an optical scan hack challenge, debate or test as I described above. Otherwise, I probably won't waste much more time here.
OH, BTW, to Nancy Tobi, I'm not the only one in NH that thinks thinks you are clueless, many of the town and city clerks feel the same way, but I guess none of them are to be trusted, either.

Perhaps you'd like to explain how Ohio's vote tally was off shored to Republican National Committee controlled web hosting space?

Please enlighten yourself by reading up on how this attorney has systematically uncovered the nature in which the Ohio 2004 presidential election was thoroughly compromised, and the very vulnerabilities inherent in the GEMS, Optical Scan and DRE equipment that you are supporting here.

Granted, it took a thoroughly corrupted Secretary of States office, and a multi pronged approach, but the readily manipulated Diebold equipment gave J. Kenneth Blackwell the opportunity to do just that without almost ZERO oversight.

Make the source code public, or better yet, shit can Windows crap all together, avoid the access database, and use open source non proprietary base code for the database, and most of this crap would never have happened.

Disable the god damned "guest" accounts. No Business being there on a voting machine, and it's the 1st damned thing any windows admin does when he sets up a new machine.

These bad practices from the makers of the worlds most secure and accurate ATM systems are INEXCUSABLE in the realm of democratically administered elections.

And quite frankly, demonstrate a FAR TOO LACKADAISICAL APPROACH to the process that lies at the very heart of democracy.

Support for electronic voting notwithstanding, Diebold really does have a great deal to answer for.

I have MORE than a clue, when it comes to networked data systems, sir.
MCSE, CCNP, JNCIA and LPI Certified.

Oh, and BTW Mr Hajjar, it IS the insiders we fear, which is why we demand of Diebold, Hart Intercivic and ES&S a higher degree of transparancy.

ya see, in ANY network, the greatest threat of intrusiuon is ALWAYS from inside the network.

Diebold should KNOW this.

And YOU should too, cause I swear to you sir, EVERYONE on this BOARD and EVERY SINGLE ELECTION INTEGRITY ADVOCATE BELIEVES WITH ALL THEIR HEART, That it's the INSIDERS who are screwing us, and Diebold is MAKING IT EASIER for them to do this.

Emphasis is mine sir, but it is at the very heart of this movement. We believe YOU are clueless.

It is easy for someone lower down in the hierarchy of an organization, like Hajjar, to think everything is fine because they have no knowledge of the corrupt activities of the higher-ups, especially the executives, making the key decisions and using very carefully selected "cut-outs," or middle men, to separate themselves from the illegal activities. Those cut-outs might later become the scapegoats, if the criminal scheme gets exposed.

These activities are no doubt compartmentalized, so that only a trusted few people have a big picture view of exactly how the fixes in the election are happening. Various individual underlings, "just doing their jobs," or groups of them, are given instructions that may seem odd, but their actions probably do not clearly amount to election fraud or tampering when seen in isolation to the rest.

Hi Dredd!
Thanks for clarifying the fact that Diebold has produced extremely safe (invulnerable) and accurate ATM's for decades now yet they find it impossible to apply the same standards to our voting machines. I'd say that this fact alone brings to mind the probability of their "complicity to conspire to defraud the american voter". It's called "culpable negligence" when you have ATM's which operate securely and efficiently on the one hand and then use that reputation to create electronic voting machines with an intentional vulnerability to facilitate easy hacking. Taking Diebold to task in an investigation is the next step. Also, subpoenas need to go to Kenneth Blackwell, Supervisor of Elections, State of Ohio who had an obvious conflict of interest in the state that promised to deliver the presidency to Bush. Blackwell was also Co-Chair for Bush/Cheney 04 with Diebold as a major player in this stolen election.

I strongly suspect that Kenneth Blackwell was a co-conspirator in the election fraud conspiracy involving Diebold.

California has de-certified their Diebold machines and other states are looking into it right now. Hopefully, by 08 we will be back to hand-counted, paper ballots - if we can provide security and accuracy to the Iraqis in our deceitful little attempt to prove their democracy, then we can certaily do the same for ourselves. If we do not, then we've got no one to blame BUT ourselves.

The people will not rest until they see J. Kenneth Blackwell's sorry butt in jail for this....along with Karl Rove and Bush himself. We know that they monkeyed with the totals but to realize that Rove and Bush were in Columbus screwing around on the night of the election just puts this all over the top! Thanks, Dan for the link. This link needs to go out to all newspapers in the country before the RNC is able to do it again in 08.

Ken,I also supported both Gene McCarthy and McGovern, as a college student, and spent many a late night discussing how it could be that people could fall for Tricky Dick's BS.You always have to be careful, here in the blogosphere, to not assume that bloggers are twenty-something's. As a fifty-something, I think it's just terrific that twenty- and thirty-something's have this tool, the internet, to discuss, organize , and dissent. And Brad and many of his (what you label) followers may be young, but my hat is off to them. I admire both their spirit and their intelligence. Just because somebody didn't start voting back during the Vietnam War, doesn't mean you know more than they do about this issue.

I am sick of people misusing the label "ideologue" today, and you are doing this in your posts here. And, your discussion tactics strike me as coming straight out of the fux news playbook, whether you watch fux news or not, esp. the following words and phrases: "looney ideologues," "you have no idea," and "ludicrous." These are some of O'Reilly's favorite words and phrases he uses when he interrupts his "guests" and outshouts them on his show.

U.S. citizens have a right to demand that there be a paper trail to substantiate their votes. The punch card ballots that resulted in the hanging chad debacle in Florida do not qualify as a paper trail. But there is no reason whatsoever to jump from hanging chad punch card ballots to electronic voting systems with zero paper record. No reason at all, except maybe for the companies that make them to save a few bucks. And, it's downright naive for anyone to expect others to simply trust in anybody's integrity. It's appropriate for you to trust your wife, but it's not appropriate for you to trust your voting machine company. For anyone to really look good and hard at all the "voting irregularities," as outlined in RFK Jr's Rolling Stone piece of June 1, 2006, and then call people who question these irregularities "conspiracy theorists," reminds me so much of Spiro Agnew's labeling of people who disagreed with his positions (which turned out in the end to be fraught with lies and illegalities) "nattering nabobs of negativity."

Either you are not recognizing yourself for who you really are, or you are pulling a Spiro Agnew here in this blog. Either way, you are clearly being disingenuous.

I still don't think Brad should "debate" you, not because I don't think he could smoke you, but because you're not worth it. You're operating on a different level than he is. You're a sales rep for a voting machine company. That's all. And if you think for one minute that you would be privy to any underhandedness on the part of your higher-ups, if it was going on, then I have a piece of oceanfront property in Minnesota I'd like to sell you.

One look at the LHS Associates site and you can see that it looks like it was designed by a 12 year old. It also appears that the site is vulnerable through it's XXX (illegal to tell you). Sad - very sad.

Another simple fact is that elections have complex identity and privacy concerns with regards to the voter and their vote that are mandated by law, and rightfully so. (You don't want an administration, especially the current administration, perusing detailed lists of exactly which citizens voted for which politicians...)

As I said, a simple fact: ATM's don't have to deal with the added layers of vulnerabilities invoked by complex voting issues... and yet ATM's are hacked.

It is a simple fact: Elections are more complicated than ATM's. And those complications increase e-voting security vulnerabilities to the point where it's a negative-sum game: e-voting literally cannot be made secure, and any number of computer scientists have shown that this is so.

And the consequences of a hacked election are considerably more far-reaching than the consequences of a hacked bank account. The terms "global" and "lethal" come to mind for some reason...

He is not known for his eloquence in public representation. At a legislative hearing in NH last year, he referred to those of us present who oppose the use of Diebold in NH elections as "granola loving, tin foil hat conspiracy theorists, loonies, etc." He did not do LHS Associates a particularly big favor in his diatribe before the committee.

That shrillness is alive and well in the EI movement as well. It is a holier than thou thingy. The apex of the ad hominem.

It is useless to try to debate an issue with anyone of those types of either side. They have the one true EVM religion and will evangelize and preach but not conduct intellectually honest debate.

Has anyone noticed that those who know it all about ATM hacks furnish nothing in the form of links, reports, articles, citations, etc. to back it up?

The gospel according to Gorp is not sufficient on this blog. Put up the evidence for the jury.

Remember that it is one thing to hack into a bank, and using a stolen ATM card number and pin to illegally withdraw, but totally another thing to hack an ATM directly. Where is the port, network card, or modem attached to an ATM? Lets see the evidence.

Otherwise it would take an insider, which is not a true hack, because it is an outsider that does a hack. And insider job or taking bank money by having a stolen ATM card is not hacking the ATM directly.

Please specify how an ATM is hacked compared exactly to how an EVM is hacked.

I think you'd be surprised how many of us out here think you are full of it, Brad. You'd be much more effective and useful if you thought critically about your approach and deficit of diplomatic tendencies.

(the email address works, btw... I set it up so that I could comment anonymously here. I'd hope you can respect that.)

My bet is: this debate will never take place, no matter how badly Brad wants it. If he stands his ground for an even playing field, either he won't get it, or, if he did, some higher-up would order this mouthpiece to back off.

Dredd, I didn't drink any kool-aid, but I still do not support HR811. Any bill that would compromise away FROM a VOTE in favor of a VVPAT is INDEFENSIBLE.

Read Bob Fitrakis' significant body of work and understand. A VVPAT would NOT have made a difference in Ohio in 2004, the votes were tabulated electronically, and THAT allowed the corrupted Secretary Blackwell's office to manipulate the count in secret.

Read the report hosted here, on the BACKDOOR VIRUS noted in the Florida 2006 mid term election cycle:

That system was the GEMS system being compromised.
(Note to Mr Hajjar, you should read that too!)

Yes, Democrats took both houses of congress, but not enough for a clear majority in either house, rendering congress ineffective. And enough evidence of shenanigans in Arizona, Florida and elsewhere to suggest that a COMPROMISE ON TRANSPARANCY is UNACCEPTABLE.

PERIOD.

TRANSPARENCY.
BALLOT Not Receipt.

Compromise in favor of corporate interests is BULLSHIT and a SELLOUT.

TRANSPARENCY Mr Hajjar, MAKE THAT FUCKING SOURCE CODE AVAILABLE. ALL OF IT.

Ken Hajjar is a DIEBOLD salesman, and it is expected that he will be full of shit, concerning anything he's pimping...of course...would anyone expect anything less?

I got the same thing when I went to the mall this weekend. This guy cornered me, and was selling this lotion from sand from the Dead Sea. I was thinking how full of shit salesmen are, while he was talking to me.

I have first hand knowledge of Harri Hursti's discussions with the SoS of California in Dec. 2005, and about the Hursti Hack of AV-OS machines first demonstrated in Leon County, FL.

I helped negotiate the terms of Harri's visit to Sacramento and was personally present all of the second day of his two-day visit. I can tell you that at no time was there ever any statement suggesting that Hursti's attack was not perfectly genuine. There was no scam. In fact, by the end of the second day the Diebold personnel who were present, and well as former and current Florida officials (who were also present) understood that it would work, and most of the discussion was about conditions under which it would work, ways it could be fixed, procedural workarounds so that it could be blocked before it was fixed, variations on the attack, etc.

Some of that discussion was a little conjectural, since at that time neither Harri nor I had seen the source code. But there was no need for Harri to demo his attack, and no one asked him to! Once Harri had explained it well enough, everyone in the room, including the Diebold people, realized that he knew what he was talking about and they understood that his attack worked, and exactly how it worked.

Harri's attack focussed attention on the AccuBasic language and its interpreter. Very little was known about it outside of Diebold's programmers, but it was clear that the interpreter was an extremely security-critical part of the codebase. So Secretary of State McPherson asked me and the VSTAAB (Voting Systems Technology Assessment and Advisory Board) to study the source code for the interpreter and related code, and report on any security issues that arose.

The work was led by Berkeley professor David Wagner, and included myself, U.C. Davis professor Matt Bishop, and Wagner's graduate students Naveen Sastry and Chris Karlof. (Wagner and Bishop recently led Secretary of State Bowen's Top to Bottom Review.) We examined the source for over three weeks, concentrating on the AccuBasic interpreter, and then submitted a report which is online at Security Analysis of the Diebold AccuBasic Interpreter report.

Our report concluded, in no uncertain terms, that Hursti's attack was absolutely real, exactly as he claimed. We absolutely confirmed it. What is more, we found a host of bugs in the interpreter that could have led to other more serious attacks than Hursti's. These have since been confirmed by the Florida report on the Diebold systems, and again by the recent California Top to Bottom Review team.

Hursti's original attack was designed to be carried out by substituting a modified memory card for the certified one at some time after the L&A test. But he subsequently discovered, in February 2006 in Emory County, UT, a much more devastating series of attacks in which, again, just by substituting a doctored memory card for the real one, the entire code base of the machine could be replaced by a malicious version that not only cheats in elections, but propagates itself virally through a whole jurisdiction's population of machines through th medium of memory card exchange. With this kind of attack, there is no need to worry about the timing of any L&A testing. The attack can, in fact, be made absolutely undetectable, and this was demonstrated a year ago (August 2006) by the Princeton team led by Prof. Ed Felten and published in the recent Electronic Voting Technology conference.

In summary, there is absolutely no doubt about the effectiveness of Hursti's attacks, which have been verified and demonstrated by numerous security experts all over the country. There is no point in quibbling about semantics or the details of testing protocols. The investigations of Hursti I and II vulnerabilities are way beyond that now. I can only surmise that anyone who still tries to claim that Hursti's attack demonstration in Leon County was somehow a sham either has not read and understood the many published studies by world class security experts confirming it, or is engaging in some kind of deliberate disinformation campaign, or both.

I didn't say you did drink kool aid nor have I ever said I support HR 811 or S. 559. Nor have I said I do not support them. I have explained what I think the judiciary will say the bills say. That is what I have debated, but who knows what the tag team is debating.

Those who are ganging up on me do not cite the text ob the bills when they demand that it say this or that. They attack me for quoting the text and then explaining why a court will say what that quoted text says.

For instance I point out that the phrase "paper ballot" appears some 39 times in the original, and that I am certain that a court will interpret that to mean exactly what it says. It means paper ballot and the court will so hold.

I do not know why anyone would not want to use competent methods of legal hermeneutics to discern the text. Bozo placards outside on the sidewalk are not competent explanations.

And I can assure you that placards outside on the street will not determine how a court rules on the meaning of the text.

I am neither for nor against HR 811 / S. 559, because it would be a waste of time. The republicans will not let S. 559, HR 811's Senate compliment, get past filibuster to the floor. It is going the way of Iraq war resolutions and impeachment bills. Nowhere.

But I do want to know what they say and why people want to be intellectually dishonest about what they say.